Much as I like the change to Turn Undead, you have a point: now, clerics are so much better than everyone else at healing that it makes you wonder why anyone else would bother even trying. Perhaps Bards could get an optional Bardic Music use to let them heal the group over the course of ten minutes of playing? Not sure what Druids could get...
A Healberry?
I've liked the idea of druid healing that accelerates the natural healing of a creature, like giving targets fast healing for a short time. I'm not sure how I would add this to the druid class though without bogging it down with another class ability.
Maybe instead they have an improved ability to use the heal skill to heal hit points better than normal characters.
I put this sentence here because it is late and I didn't know how to end this post without feeling like it abruptly cut off.
ive never been a fan how a cleric is a must have for a group. it always means someone gets stuck with it even if no one wants to play it. or atleast someone feels an obligation to usually. in the beta game im about to play one of the other players is going cleric just because we dont have one. he really doesnt want to play it but he doesnt want to play in a game where we will die a quick and horrible death as he put it. it would be nice to see other classes able to fill the role so you dont need a cleric to not die a painfull death
now for how it would work? i remember there being a feat in some splatbook where the driud could give up his ability to spontaniously cast summon natures allie to cast a regeneration over time spell. it sounded good but i thought the feat didnt give enough healing.
as for the bard, he could have some spell like ability that he can use with his bardic performance. thats a little more iffy but im not sure if you could really trade anything out there
I'm not sure the bard really should be a great healer... but the druid I can deal with that. One possible way to boost the druids healing would be to open up the Healing Domain as one of the domains the druid can take (instead of the AC). The healing domain gives 1 CLW/ 2 levels, fast healing at 1/4 level at 8th level (caster level rounds)... though the fast healing kind of sucks.
So even with this the druid is weaksauce as a healer. Spontaneous healing similar to the cleric? Overall, the turning thing really ramps up the healing in a huge way.
|
The druids and bards have other things they can do. They don't need to be made into healers on par with clerics. If the party doesn't have a cleric then they need to find other viable means to heal- it's the cost of adventuring without a cleric, just as a party without a ranger is going to have a more difficult time tracking, or a party without a rogue does getting around locked doors. Should another class have the skill points and access to all of the class skills of a thief if no one wants to play a rogue? At what point does the desire to augment a class to compensate for the lack of another class in the party end?
|
|
The druids and bards have other things they can do. They don't need to be made into healers on par with clerics. If the party doesn't have a cleric then they need to find other viable means to heal- it's the cost of adventuring without a cleric, just as a party without a ranger is going to have a more difficult time tracking, or a party without a rogue getting around locked doors. Should another class have the skill points and access to all of the class skills of a thief if no one wants to play a rogue? At what point does the desire to augment a class to compensate for the lack of another class in the party end?
Absolutely agree.
The druids and bards have other things they can do. They don't need to be made into healers on par with clerics. If the party doesn't have a cleric then they need to find other viable means to heal- it's the cost of adventuring without a cleric, just as a party without a ranger is going to have a more difficult time tracking, or a party without a rogue does getting around locked doors. Should another class have the skill points and access to all of the class skills of a thief if no one wants to play a rogue? At what point does the desire to augment a class to compensate for the lack of another class in the party end?
I agree to the extent that the druid (or bard) should not be augmented to make him good as a healer. I suggest that it would be good for the game if there was the option at a cost for the druid to be able to take over some of this role. Sacrificing the animal companion for the healing domain is actually a net loss of power to the class.
The reason I suggest it would be good for the game as a whole is simple. The game is designed to around the idea that the party have a player who is good at healing. Sometimes no one in the party wants to play a cleric. Forcing a player to be a cleric so the party can have a healer is no fun for that player.
Your example of the rogue, the ranger is 2 skill points shy of the rogue and there is considerable skill overlap between the 2. Under Pathfinder a ranger can easily take 2 levels of rogue to pick up the class skills and be able to fill the rogues roll. Similarly the wizard and sorcerers roles are exchangeable, as are the fighter and barbarians roles. In fact the cleric is pretty much the only class that has a monopoly in a given role anymore.
Again, I'm not talking about augmenting the class like its some sort of freebie, I am talking about giving them an option in exchange for an existing class ability.
|
|
I agree to the extent that the druid (or bard) should not be augmented to make him good as a healer. I suggest that it would be good for the game if there was the option at a cost for the druid to be able to take over some of this role.
If that's presented as an alternate class skill in another book, that's fine. It doesn't belong in the core rules. It fundamentally changes the nature of the class. If every power, skill, and ability someone thought would improve the playability of a class was included in the final Pathfinder RPG the book would be two thousand pages long.
In fact the cleric is pretty much the only class that has a monopoly in a given role anymore.
The cleric doesn't hold a monopoly on healing. He's simply better at it than other classes. That's the point. That's why fighters, rangers, paladins, and barbarians are better at attacking, rogues and bards are better at sneaky things, and wizards and sorcerers are better at blasting large groups of enemies from a football field away. If one class was no longer better at doing something than another class there would eventually be only one class. Everyone would be a factotum.
The druids and bards have other things they can do. They don't need to be made into healers on par with clerics. If the party doesn't have a cleric then they need to find other viable means to heal- it's the cost of adventuring without a cleric, just as a party without a ranger is going to have a more difficult time tracking, or a party without a rogue does getting around locked doors. Should another class have the skill points and access to all of the class skills of a thief if no one wants to play a rogue? At what point does the desire to augment a class to compensate for the lack of another class in the party end?
You can track without a ranger, you just need a feat. Bards, Scouts and spelltheifs have similier class skills to rogues. I hate the new turn mechanics as it shoe-horns the cleric into a set role. Before, it was -very- easy to match the healing power the cleric had to offer, now it's nigh-impossible
I agree to the extent that the druid (or bard) should not be augmented to make him good as a healer. I suggest that it would be good for the game if there was the option at a cost for the druid to be able to take over some of this role.If that's presented as an alternate class skill in another book, that's fine. It doesn't belong in the core rules. It fundamentally changes the nature of the class. If every power, skill, and ability someone thought would improve the playability of a class was included in the final Pathfinder RPG the book would be two thousand pages long.
In fact the cleric is pretty much the only class that has a monopoly in a given role anymore.The cleric doesn't hold a monopoly on healing. He's simply better at it than other classes. That's the point. That's why fighters, rangers, paladins, and barbarians are better at attacking, rogues and bards are better at sneaky things, and wizards and sorcerers are better at blasting large groups of enemies from a football field away. If one class was no longer better at doing something than another class there would eventually be only one class. Everyone would be a factotum.
Yes, you're right, clerics should be healers. It's not like a Cleric of a god of death or torture or any such is going to mind someone using their powers to heal.
Clerics should -not- be healbots. If I want to play a cleric of a sneaky god of theivery, or a cleric of magic, I should be able to do so without the party insisting that I spend turn attempts to heal them.
Bards and Druids still have the same healing spells as they did before, the same ones available to the clerics. The only major change is the 'healing burst' when they channel positive energy. But they can only do that so many times a day, and if they use them all up to heal their party, their SOL when a group of Undead show up later. I don't see that this makes a Cleric an essential, must-have class for a party, unless the DM plans on a heavily Undead campaign. As far as giving the Druid a similar power, the idea of a regeneration or fast healing aura, similar to what the Dragon Shaman has in PHB II 3.5, would work as an alternative, as it only works to bring the wounded up to half hit points. Clerics are still better healers, as they should be, but the Druid would then be able to at least keep the party alive until they could rest and heal up the rest of the way naturally.
Bards and Druids still have the same healing spells as they did before, the same ones available to the clerics. The only major change is the 'healing burst' when they channel positive energy. But they can only do that so many times a day, and if they use them all up to heal their party, their SOL when a group of Undead show up later. I don't see that this makes a Cleric an essential, must-have class for a party, unless the DM plans on a heavily Undead campaign. As far as giving the Druid a similar power, the idea of a regeneration or fast healing aura, similar to what the Dragon Shaman has in PHB II 3.5, would work as an alternative, as it only works to bring the wounded up to half hit points. Clerics are still better healers, as they should be, but the Druid would then be able to at least keep the party alive until they could rest and heal up the rest of the way naturally.
It makes a cleric essintial as "Healer" is often seen as a role needed to be filled, and now the cleric fills that role far better than anyone else.
You can be a warrior with many classes such as barbarian or paladin, you can be sneaky easily using a ranger or rogue, but who would play a bard or druid as a healer when clerics can do it so much better?
Also, fighting undead only makes the cleric able to use this healing ability during combat as well, healing his allies as he beats off undead as well.
I agree, but I still feel that the cleric should be the best healer of all.
Maybe creating a couple "healer feats" could improve considerable both the bard or the druid's healing ability at the cost of the primary abilityes -wild shape or bardic music-. 2 feats or primary abilities usage to still make them pay dearly if the want to be top healers.
Anyway the point should be to make more mix n' match parties and beign able to have a cool party without a cleric.
I agree to the extent that the druid (or bard) should not be augmented to make him good as a healer. I suggest that it would be good for the game if there was the option at a cost for the druid to be able to take over some of this role.If that's presented as an alternate class skill in another book, that's fine. It doesn't belong in the core rules. It fundamentally changes the nature of the class. If every power, skill, and ability someone thought would improve the playability of a class was included in the final Pathfinder RPG the book would be two thousand pages long.
Hmm, that's funny because the change I proposed would add a comma and one word to the book (see below). I suppose if you made 20,000 more changes like this then the book would be two thousand pages long. Nor do I agree that it changes the nature of the druid class. Healing is a classic role of the druid.
In fact the cleric is pretty much the only class that has a monopoly in a given role anymore.
The cleric doesn't hold a monopoly on healing. He's simply better at it than other classes. That's the point. That's why fighters, rangers, paladins, and barbarians are better at attacking, rogues and bards are better at sneaky things, and wizards and sorcerers are better at blasting large groups of enemies from a football field away. If one class was no longer better at doing something than another class there would eventually be only one class. Everyone would be a factotum.
The cleric is vastly superior to the druid and the bard at healing... so much so that it's a no-contest even if the other were specifically focused on healing. It's funny that you say that then list every other role in the party with multiple classes which are nearly equally viable for the given role.
Everyone would be a factotum... so everyone would be mediocre at everything? I'm just suggesting two classes be decent at healing. Sort of the way you suggest (above) two classes be decent at 'blasting large groups of enemies' or 4 classes are good at 'attacking'. Should we merge all the martial roles into one class? Why have multiple martial classes when they are roughly equal at the given task?
I'm just suggesting two classes be decent at healing.One class is decent at healing- the druid. The cleric, on the other hand, excels at it. That's actually more than you're asking for, and nothing has to be changed.
Choice of wording aside, what is being asked for is the druid and bard to approach the same level as a cleric in terms of healing. That way the cleric isn't shoe-horned into a heal-bot role and those interested in doing a healer but in a different way have better options.
If we're going to just say "each class has a set role" why don't we just remake the classese?
Archer, Two-handed damage dealer, defencive warrior, skill monkey, blaster, healbot, buffer.
There.
|
|
[...] what is being asked for is the druid and bard to approach the same level as a cleric in terms of healing. That way the cleric isn't shoe-horned into a heal-bot role and those interested in doing a healer but in a different way have better options.
There are better ways to expand the role of a cleric in the party than dumping abilities into other classes (fixing the domain powers is a good start). Once again, the druid and bard classes are not focused on healing, nor should they be. That they're capable of healing at all (especially the bard) is a boon. If variant class abilities are created in supplemental books, that's fine. But the core design- and fundamental concept- of a druid or bard should not be changed to make the party playing without a cleric feel more secure in where the healing is going to come from.
There are better ways to expand the role of a cleric in the party than dumping abilities into other classes (fixing the domain powers is a good start)
"Fixing" Domains will not change the fact that as long as the cleric has the channel energy ability it will always be seen as a healer first.
|
|
"Fixing" Domains will not change the fact that as long as the cleric has the channel energy ability it will always be seen as a healer first.
That's an issue with a player's point of view. If he or she has such a limited scope of vision then there's nothing that can be augmented in the cleric class or any other to change that.
"Fixing" Domains will not change the fact that as long as the cleric has the channel energy ability it will always be seen as a healer first.That's an issue with a player's point of view. If he or she has such a limited scope of vision then there's nothing that can be augmented in the cleric class or any other to change that.
So it's only opinion that clerics are supposed to be healers in the paizo version? Even though there biggest change was making them able to heal even more? Have you actually looked around these boards? 9 out of 10 players here already see the cleric as a healbot even without the channelling power.
There is plently that can be augmented in the cleric class to get rid of this. One would be removing the spontainous casting and making it a feat or some such. If your cleric can't heal spontainiously or heal via channelling, suddenly hes as good as healing as a druid or even a bard. This gets the cleric out of the heal-bot role.
I play world of warcraft often and for long spans of time.
Any class with UMD can be viable alternative to cleric for healing.
Any class with UMD can be viable alternative to cleric for healing.
Then why the need for the channel energy change? Also, this may just be personal preference, but if I did a character with UMD, I'd rathertake wands and such that let me take down enemies quicker than healing. In a campaign my group just played there was little need for healing compared to our normal games as few bosses got the oppetunity to get a hit in before being taken down.
Though you idea might have some merit in theory, have you ever actually seen a character take UMD and then only use healing wands?
I agree with IconoclasticScream. The druid and the bard still have their limited healing, and UMD is available as well. There are also potions, scrolls and wands for the non-clerics.
Our group always seems to be missing at least one part of 'the four'. This campaign they have no arcane caster and no rogue, and so far they are doing fine. Not to long ago they had no divine caster and managed to retire with their riches at around 18th level.
I don't mind the suggestion of the healing domain for druids though. That would be an okay fit.
Anyone want the monk to have a good vibrations healing palm? Maybe the ranger's animal companion could poop 2d4 goodberries a day? :)
Now you're just being silly. It's pretty unreasonalble to ask a monk to heal by punching someone. Asking that the cleric have his healing powers toned down isn't.
|
|
Now you're just being silly.
It's not silly. It's satire, an attempt to point out absurdity through the use of hyperbole.
Asking that the cleric have his healing powers toned down isn't.
Nero, that isn't even the OP's desire. He doesn't want anything done to the cleric's healing power (emphasis mine):
I propose that the Druid and Bard can be made viable healers as well. Probably not as well as the cleric, but at least well enough that the party isn't gimped if one of them took a druid / bard instead.
|
I was under the impression that if a spell was on your list of possible spells, you could use wands for it.
Bards, Rangers, Paladins and Druids all have heal spells in their lists. Therefore they can all use wands of cure whatever without the need of UMD. Is this wrong? If not, they can be pretty effective healers without the need ofr a cleric. However the GM may need to throw a few more of these items into the game to help out.
Would get alot more muddy at high level play, but then I don't have any experience of how channel energy affects high level play (my group are evil so our cleric doesn't channel healing when he spends a rebuke attempt). Without the capacity to cast Heal a few times, our party would have lost a lot more characters at this stage.
Cheers
It's not silly. It's satire, an attempt to point out absurdity through the use of hyperbole.
A monk healing folk by punching them and an animal companion that poops healing berries doesn't sound silly to you? I'd be more willing to take your point's more seriously if they weren't sarcastic and actually did something to enchance your argument.
Nero, that isn't even the OP's desire. He doesn't want anything done to the cleric's healing power (emphasis mine)
Not directly the OP's desire yes, but just because the I agree with what the OP says doesn't mean I agree with how it should be done. If the OP thinks the best way other classes more viable as healers is to boast their powers thats his/her opinion. My opinion is that healers should be a conceapt that several classes could follow, and I think the best way to ahceive this is not to have one class exceptionally good at it.
You're turning satire into tragicomedy. It's not that we're in different ballparks, we're clearly in different universes. If it makes you feel better, I concede; you "win". There is nothing ridiculous in wanting any class, or even all classes, to be great divine healers.
Don't try to twist what I say. Divine healers? If you'rve even looked at what I've said you'll know that I don't even want the cleric to be considered a healer. And quit trying to antagonize by saying things like "we're in different universes". Quit frankly, it just strikes me that you're running out of arguments and can't "win" unless you insult. Now if you have some good points I'd be more than happy to debate them but if you're going to act childish then don't expect much effort on this end.
|
|
Don't try to twist what I say.
I'll quote you directly then.
Divine healers? If you'rve even looked at what I've said you'll know that I don't even want the cleric to be considered a healer.
So I looked at what you said on Thursday, August 28th in this thread:
Yes, you're right, clerics should be healers.
Later that day you said:
It makes a cleric essintial as "Healer" is often seen as a role needed to be filled, and now the cleric fills that role far better than anyone else.
You can be a warrior with many classes such as barbarian or paladin, you can be sneaky easily using a ranger or rogue, but who would play a bard or druid as a healer when clerics can do it so much better?
Also, fighting undead only makes the cleric able to use this healing ability during combat as well, healing his allies as he beats off undead as well.
You don't even seem to know what you're debating. That's why I can't do this sad waltz with you anymore. I'm turning in my dance card.
Don't try to twist what I say.I'll quote you directly then.
Divine healers? If you'rve even looked at what I've said you'll know that I don't even want the cleric to be considered a healer.So I looked at what you said on Thursday, August 28th in this thread:
Yes, you're right, clerics should be healers.
It's called sarcasim, you should know that since it seems to be your primary method of poorly trying to prove your point.
It makes a cleric essintial as "Healer" is often seen as a role needed to be filled, and now the cleric fills that role far better than anyone else.
You can be a warrior with many classes such as barbarian or paladin, you can be sneaky easily using a ranger or rogue, but who would play a bard or druid as a healer when clerics can do it so much better?
Also, fighting undead only makes the cleric able to use this healing ability during combat as well, healing his allies as he beats off undead as well.
This was regarding the -new- healer done by paizo, you know, the thing I'm trying to argue they should change.
Turn in your "Dance Card" then and actually take time to look at what others are saying. If you make a few good points I'd be willing to stand back from the argument, but you're really giving me nothing here. In fact your last two posts come off as personal attacks against myself and not my opinions. It is possible for someone other than yourself to be right.
Leaving the personal offenses to the personal offenders or offended, I was looking at this thread and thinking a little.
At my table, my world, we use the pathfinder rules a little modified to suit our needs. Then, in my game we found a way for at least the druid be more healing capable. The whole point is that it makes the cleric less healing capable.
Well, while I know that the Domains system for PF is well stabilished (and I like it, I just don't use it because I found one that plays better at my game world, and other things), in my games I use the following: The cleric simply loses the ability to convert spells to the healing subschool. This is a great loss, of course, but the Cleric can now convert spells of his/her list to cast spells present in their two domain lists. Many people can argue how that makes the cleric more or less powerfull, and I can see reason in most of the arguing, but as I tested this option in my games, with both pc and npc clerics (and I'm happy to say that I could do it with two different players and characters at two different power levels), and it actually makes the cleric more Cleric of a God than Healer. It's not hard to think how different is a cleric of a, let's say, Good and Strenght god, and one of a Magic and War one.
Now, leaving the discussion about how the cleric does less healing, and how the group put up with that (At least really consider the idea people, it's not that bad. The characters of my game table are still alive, after all -AND I use a variant of the Wound points system!), then comes the druid.
In my games the druid can't convert spells into summon nature's allies. They have a choice to make, of chosing on Path (heh). The Paths are simply like domains, with colorful spells designed to fit thematichally with the druid. There is a Fire Path, a Fey Path, a Rain Path, and even a Renewal Path, that contain only healing spells. That way the druid can choose if he wants to be a healer, a buffer, a blaster and all.
While I know that the domain and things of PF is well stabilished, and an idea like this probably won't help at all, it's not hard -again- to think about something moe on less on these lines to make other classes more healer.
My opinion (and it is an opinion, please, do not consider it offensive in any way) is: Let the player decide if he wants a character more healer or less healer. Not every cleric of every god should be so healing capable.
What do you people think?
Ps: I couldn't conceive a post spelled on a way less offensive. Please, none of these words were written to offend, if anyway you were offended...
Owowowow!
And Ordos, I forget something I was going to post because of what you said: While I think we are kindred spirits thinking about this, and that last year I was thinkin about giving arcane caster at least a "heal minor something spell", I saw some spells at the Spell Compendium, I think, that the caster heals a little ammount of damage from someone besides himself but he takes half the healing as damage.
I'm pretty sure I saw some other heal minor things too, and this spell strikes me exactly how I think about an Arcanist healing magic: Exceptionally weak, maybe just capable of accelerating the natural healing process of the body (probabily necromancy) but really little more.
Well, while I know that the Domains system for PF is well stabilished (and I like it, I just don't use it because I found one that plays better at my game world, and other things), in my games I use the following: The cleric simply loses the ability to convert spells to the healing subschool. This is a great loss, of course, but the Cleric can now convert spells of his/her list to cast spells present in their two domain lists. Many people can argue how that makes the cleric more or less powerfull, and I can see reason in most of the arguing, but as I tested this option in my games, with both pc and npc clerics (and I'm happy to say that I could do it with two different players and characters at two different power levels), and it actually makes the cleric more Cleric of a God than Healer. It's not hard to think how different is a cleric of a, let's say, Good and Strenght god, and one of a Magic and War one.
I personally think this is a great idea. It solves both the "Cleric is a healbot" and "Clerics of different gods are two similier" problems at once. And what's better is that if a player insists on playing a healer it means they might actually use the healing domain.
Anyone want the monk to have a good vibrations healing palm? Maybe the ranger's animal companion could poop 2d4 goodberries a day? :)
LOL!
I have to admit that I like the idea of not having to depend on the Cleric for healing, but I would like to focus only on the Druid. I like the Bard as is.
First thing I would do for the Druid is give him a choice of the nature based Domains, and include Healing. But I would allow him to also have his companion, since that's a part of being a Druid to me. Maybe take a look at the Arcane Evolved Greenbond, who could cast Cure Light Wounds a number of times equal to his WIS mod per day as a class ability. Less impressive than Channel Positive, but would help.
So, Mike, I'm also with you on this idea. In a group without a cleric, a druid (and allow me to say that I NEVER saw a group that had a cleric AND a druid. NO-ONE-WANTS-TO-PLAY-DIVINE. Specially since the cleric is a band-aid) prepares almost all his spells as healing spells if he even cares about the party...
So, what do you think about my idea? Give the druid acess to one "druidic domain", "path", "nature path" or anything, and let him choose "Healing", "Renewal" "Rebirth" (or whatever name you give it) if he wants, to convert prepared spells into healing instead into summoning. This should be quick and easy, and I think it can be backwards compatible.
I'm all for giving the Druid the option of a Healing Domain, but I'd make it part of the list and let the player choose. And personally, I'd keep the Druid's ability to cast summon spells. We have to remember, it's not that the Druid's job should be the healer of the party, his job is to be the Pets guy. Summons, Shape Change, Companions. We just want him to be more effective as a healer. That way you could have a Druid and a Cleric in the same party and not feel like you were stepping on each others toes.
My suggestion would be to create a new ability Called Nature's Touch or some such. A number of times per day equal to the Druid's Wis Mod he gains the ability to heal D6 points of healing to any creature he touches. This healing increases an additional D6 every 2 Druid levels he takes. So 2d6 at 3rd level, 3D6 at 5th, and so on.
This is the same mechanic as Channel Postive, but can only effect one target. This way it will mean he can free up some spell slots and still heal, but never as effectively as the Cleric.
Just a thought.
And for the record, I've never like Non-Lethal damage mechanic in this game, I find it mildly confusing and would suggest not increasing it's presense. Outside of that, it's not a bad idea and if others liked it, I'd not object.
My problem with always came down to I stab you, then punch you, then stab you. So now you have both lethal and non lethal damage. If you go into negatives, are you dead, or do you only get knocked out, do I have to additional damage equal to the non lethal damage to kill you? What happens? It's probably in a rule book somewhere, but I've never really took the time to look it up.
I liked a rule I read somewhere, maybe Spycraft 2, where non lethal damage caused a fort save and could knock you out, but never adjusted your hit points.
Laters,
Mike
We've never had much of issue, playing in several campaigns without a cleric during the 3.0 and 3.5 eras. However...
I would love the idea of combining both the addition of the healing domain to the druid's options and changing the cleric's spontaneous conversion of spells from cure/inflict only to spells granted by their domains.
Not only is this a great idea for cutting down the "heal-bot" image of the cleric and effectively narrowing the healing gap between cleric and druid, but it also makes a cleric feel "closer" to their god and less "generic".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I've liked the idea of druid healing that accelerates the natural healing of a creature, like giving targets fast healing for a short time. I'm not sure how I would add this to the druid class though without bogging it down with another class ability.
Maybe instead they have an improved ability to use the heal skill to heal hit points better than normal characters.
I put this sentence here because it is late and I didn't know how to end this post without feeling like it abruptly cut off.
There is a feat that does this called "Sacred Healing" in I believe Complete Divine that gives fast healing 3 for (rds = CHA bonus). Well, actually, it's a little backwards from your suggestion, cuz it gives clerics ANOTHER way to heal by spending turning attempts.
Still, there's no reason druids couldn't get in on some of that action.
PS - There's another different (and lamer) "Sacred Healing" feat in another splatbook.
First thing I would do for the Druid is give him a choice of the nature based Domains, and include Healing. But I would allow him to also have his companion, since that's a part of being a Druid to me. Maybe take a look at the Arcane Evolved Greenbond, who could cast Cure Light Wounds a number of times equal to his WIS mod per day as a class ability. Less impressive than Channel Positive, but would help.
This is exactly what Iconocast was railing about, giving the druids improved healing but letting him keep everything else. This is why I like the idea of adding the Healing Domain to the list of Domains under Natural Bond... it's simple and balanced.
Another possible easy fix is allowing the vitality series of spells from Spell Compendium. They are not great for healing during combat but superior to CLW/CMW/CSR of comparable spell level for post combat healing.
